Hmm. Why bother putting the LICENSE.txt or CHANGES.txt there at all? (I have never had to deal with a sub-project in the root of a larger project at the ASF.) Is it intended to be built out of the source, and shipped separately?
On 17 October 2012 16:45, Chip Childers <chip.child...@sungard.com> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 11:41 AM, Noah Slater <nsla...@apache.org> wrote: > > On 17 October 2012 13:56, Chip Childers <chip.child...@sungard.com> > wrote: > > > >> > >> > AL tools/marvin/CHANGES.txt > >> > N tools/marvin/LICENSE.txt > >> > AL tools/marvin/MANIFEST.in > >> > >> Marvin is a stand-alone tool really. That's why they are there. > > > > > > Can you clarify what you mean? I can't find this license in the root > > LICENSE file. Why is this an exception to our usual rule of stripping > these > > files and moving that information to the root directory? > > This is our code. It's an ASLv2 license. > > >> N tools/marvin/marvin/sandbox/demo/live/README > >> > N tools/marvin/marvin/sandbox/demo/simulator/README > >> > > >> > Could these be moved to the root dir: > >> > > >> > N docs/README.txt > >> > N patches/systemvm/debian/README > >> > N test/integration/component/README > >> > N test/integration/smoke/README > >> > >> They could be (including the marvin ones from above), but I actually > >> disagree with consolidating them. Personally, I prefer readme files > >> to be in the folder that they are talking about. If someone wants to > >> make the change, then I won't argue with it. My preference isn't > >> strong enough to object strenuously and block the change. > > > > > > We disagree, but fair enough. It's just my personal preference. > > > > -- > > NS > -- NS
